There's threats and there's threats. To his own people? Sure, same as anytyrant in any country around the world. To the US? Again, no more thananybody else, and probably less, given that his military is in a shambles, hiseconomy is a mess, there hasn't been one shred of evidence to support thethesis that he can hurt anybody outside his own borders...on and on and on.

>He has violated every>resolution the UN gave him.

As others have pointed out, the US has violated UN rules, ditto for Israel andany number of other countries. In addition, the US has removed itself from theWorld Court, broken the Arms Limitation Pact with Russia, has announced itplans to start testing nukes again in violation of the Test Ban Treaty, I couldgo on and on. Should we invade ourselves?

>He is a threat to Israel.

Lots of governments are. So why are we taking on this one? Is that the reasonfor the invasion? Because he's a threat to Isreal? That hasn't been said byour government. If that were the reason, then we should be invading Palistine,Lebanon, Iran and so on. Why is Iraq being singled out?

>He does not like the US government.

I didn't know that was a requirement for not being invaded. Are we thereforefree to invade anybody who doesn't like us? Because that would entail most ofthe world as matters stand right now, which is ironic since after 9/11 a lot ofthe world was was standing *with* us until we squandered that good will andantagonized countries that would normally be our friends. But again, we're notinvading all or any of them, why Iraq?

>Yesterday the UN inspectors found 12 chemical>warheads in great condition.

No, they found 12 *empty* warheads, that could be used for chemical charges, ina box covered with dust and rat droppings that had been sitting in a corner forgod knows how long. Shall we go to war for 12 empty shell casings? Othernations have shell casings, some empty, some full of chemical or biologicalagents, numbering in the hundreds. Why Iraq and not them?

>That's in violation of the new resolution>because he was to destroy them or list them on the 12,000-page>declaration last month.

There's some debate apparently as to whether or not these were in a previouslydeclared document. Bear in mind also that most of the weaponry, chemical andmissile, was sold to Iraq by the US.

>He almost once killed an ex-president.

That's been alleged but never substantiated. Nor has a shred of evidence EVERbeen presented tying Iraq to 9/11. Not one. Powell and Bush both came forthsaying that such proof would be forthcoming, but to date not one bit has beensupplied. Instead, we have Rumsfeld saying things like "the absence of proofis not the proof of absence." This is the same Rumsfeld who was quoted talkingto one of his staff as saying "can we tie this to Saddam?" within hours of9/11. They were looking for a reason to go after him.

When Kennedy was prepared to go to the wall over Cuba, he declassified highresolution photos of the missile sites under construction in Cuba. The momenthe did that, there was no longer any argument over the rightness of the cause. If Bush has the evidence, he should produce it. Instead, he says, as he doesin the new Woodward book, that the president doesn't have to prove or explainhimself to anybody.

>We>don't want Saddam to be the next North Korea.

Except, of course, we *do* have North Korea being belligerent, threateningnuclear war, which *does* have nukes or the potential to make them, which *has*been exporting missiles to Yemen...and that seemingly much greater menace isbeing treated with diplomatic kid-gloves by the Bush administration. Why thedouble standard? Are they afraid to make trouble because they know that NorthKorea really *is* a threat, but Iraq *isn't*? If so, then again, I ask, whysingle out Iraq?

>Also note most of the>Middle East is ruled by tyrant rulers.

Okay, so do we now invade all of them too? It's also worth noting that most ofthem don't like Saddam. Further, most of the Moslem leaders aren't big onSaddam because he's kept a secular rule in place despite religiouspressure...which makes any thought of an alliance with Bin Laden even moresuspect, since he's dead against a secular state.

>They considered a threat for>having a democracy in Iraq.

This sentence doesn't parse. Try again.

Point is, is it the business of the United States to initiate first-strikes totopple other governments, however much we don't like them, through invasion andwarfare? Do we start knocking over governments just because we *can*?

Even the CIA stated that they didn't think Saddam would or could be a menace tothe US unless invaded and pressed into a corner. So again, why invade?

Real simple. Because the supply of oil is shrinking, because they control oneof the largest supplies of oil on the planet, and Bush and his oil-companybuddies want control of that, and the right to re-draw the map of the MiddleEast in ways they prefer.

And I don't think that's a valid reason for one sovereign nation to go to warwith another.

If there were even a single piece of proof that there was any tie between Iraqand 9/11, if there were any direct attack on US soil by Iraq, I'd be rightthere saying let's get 'em. But there's not.

We abhor the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, intended to disable our militaryso that we would not be a threat to their interests in the Pacific. They saythey gave us plenty of warning, even a letter saying that was that and theywere moving. But the act stands as one of the most shameful events in militaryhistory.

We should know better than to go down roads trod so often to shameful places byothers before us. We should be better than that. We should learn fromhistory.

Saddam is a thug. He deserves to go down, and he will, but it should bethrough the actions of his own people, not through an invasion and a puppetgovernment.

He's a creep.

But that doesn't make what's happening right.

War should be the last resort of people of conscience, not the first resort.